In the UK, Discrimination Act of 1975 was altered to launch sexual irritation as a type of discrimination in 1986. It mentioned guidelines that if a boss treats someone less favourably on the ground that the defendants have refused and put forward any kind of harassment such as hostile, rape, humiliating and violating a person’s dignity in workplace among others, it would be judged as harassment. As in this case, the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 (SOA) and Sexual offences Act of 1956 are applicable. The Sexual Offence Act of 2003 sets offences for prosecution of proving absence at consent of sec. 1-4. The aforementioned offences are related to a person involved in a sexual activity. Sexual Violence in England often goes unreported by female and male victims. Amnesty International conducted a research, which found that 1/3rd of the public believe that a woman is answerable for being raped if she has behaved in an enticing way. Chances for having parallel mind-set also exist relating to what a woman was wearing at the time of harassment, quantity of alcohol that had been consumed and whether or not a woman had said no to the man. Prior to enactment of SOA, there was no as such statutory meaning of consent. Sec. 74 of this act states that a person contents to sexual activity, if he/she agrees to it as an option and holds the liberty and ability to make that choiceii.
As per the case, Sec 75 and Sec 76 of SOA will be applicable on the boss, as the petitioner indicted the defendant of having non-consensual sex with the woman after an evening of intense alcoholic drinks. The boss when found guilty for the crime is liable for imprisonment, unless subsection 4 applies, which states that if a person is caught blameworthy under Sec 75 and Sec 76, then he/she will be prone to imprisonment for a period of maximum 6 months or a fine that does not surpass the statutory maximum